Literature DB >> 20151178

Quantifying the value of markers in screening programmes.

Søren Dinesen Østergaard1, Peter Thisted Dinesen, Leslie Foldager.   

Abstract

Existing methods used to rank the value of individual screening markers in screening programmes are inadequate. We have developed a simple Screening Marker Index: (Screening Marker Index = Positive Predictive Value x Sensitivity). The Screening Marker Index proved to be superior to existing indices in ranking screening markers according to their ability to identify the conditions sought.

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20151178     DOI： 10.1007/s10654-010-9430-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol        ISSN： 0393-2990            Impact factor:   8.082


  12 in total

Review 1.  Uses and abuses of screening tests.

Authors:  David A Grimes; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-09       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Evidence relevant to the investigation of breast symptoms: the triple test.

Authors:  L Irwig; P Macaskill; N Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Index for rating diagnostic tests.

Authors:  W J YOUDEN
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1950-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years.

Authors:  Anne Andermann; Ingeborg Blancquaert; Sylvie Beauchamp; Véronique Déry
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 9.408

5.  Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.

Authors:  Peter Sasieni; Alejandra Castanon; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-01       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 6.  Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening.

Authors:  C M Rembold
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-01

7.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

8.  The value of screening.

Authors:  R R Love; A E Camilli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1981-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The number of smokers needed to screen and treat in a smoking cessation programme.

Authors:  Marja N Storm-Versloot; Hester Vermeulen; Louise C W Wiggers; Ellen M A Smets; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Ron J G Peters; Dink A Legemate; Rien de Vos
Journal:  Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil       Date:  2009-12

Review 10.  Depression in COPD--management and quality of life considerations.

Authors:  Kurt B Stage; Thomas Middelboe; Tore B Stage; Claus H Sørensen
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2006
View more
  2 in total

1.  Sensitivity × PPV is a recognized test called the clinical utility index (CUI+).

Authors:  Alex J Mitchell
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2011-03-26       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  Bipolar At-Risk Criteria: An Examination of Which Clinical Features Have Optimal Utility for Identifying Youth at Risk of Early Transition From Depression to Bipolar Disorders.

Authors:  Jan Scott; Steven Marwaha; Aswin Ratheesh; Iain Macmillan; Alison R Yung; Richard Morriss; Ian B Hickie; Andreas Bechdolf
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 9.306
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.